-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Ouch! The insults just keep flying.We're naughty.
You have a habit of ascribing motive to people's posts and now you are bolding sections just to let people know that it is the author's opinion and not a press release from Tesla. Probably not necessary.
That, of course, is perfectly fair game for argument. Personally, I see my response e.g. to TexasEV par the course for conversation - and the bolding was just a quoting tool.
I was pointing out a weakness in an argument to move the discussion along towards, what I presume is what we all want, further collective knowledge. I think it is an important distinction to make: Tesla has not specified what is appropriate local charging and their wide distribution for the letter doesn't help determine that, quite the contrary. When people say, like TexasEV said, quite affirmatively that the "letter was aimed at the owner who lives 5 minutes from the supercharger and uses it every few days instead of plugging in at home. Forget it and enjoy your Tesla.", I thought it is important to separate it from information, it is just an opinion. We do NOT know who the letter was aimed at, not really. If the recipient believes an opinion as a fact (thinking that we here on TMC might have actual insight into Tesla's intent on this, beyond what is public) and later gets into trouble with Tesla for "forgetting about it", that helps nobody.
I for one thought it was a pretty popular opinion on TMC to point out what is not official information and mere speculation. I was trying to do that in that case.
I get your opinion, I think, but I find it difficult to fathom a constructive conversation where we couldn't correct each other - or at least propose corrections and hear the counter-argument to see if the correction sticks. Challenging the views of others, and vice-versa, and hashing it all out is what generates improved information. Smalltalk doesn't do this.
But I do get it that some would prefer forums to be a place where they can say their piece and move on satisfied, and hope others leave it at that too. These people are not so much interested in dialogue, than just expressing themselves and maybe hanging out. I understand there is a portion of membership on any forum that would prefer that, instead of a deeper dialogue, and that when these clash certainly there can be issues.
I know I am in the "deeper dialogue" group.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Classic. Derailing serious conversation with "funny" pics.
I officially removed you from my ignore list.
I'm glad you found the image funny. But my point is not just for fun: I seriously mean it would be really great if Tesla just published a Fair Usage Policy for free Supercharging and be done with it.
That's nice to hear. I appreciate the opinion, your post - and agree.
I apologize for misreading your post.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I think Tesla would have no problem with defining and implementing a sensible Fair Use Policy. They wouldn't have a problem legally nor PR-wise. The policy must be such that a very low percentage of owners become labelled actual "abusers".
Look, consider how Tesla has publicly always but emphasis on how the SC is for road trips and how it unlocks one of the final obstacles to wide spread EV adoption: long distance travel. If someone legally challenged a Fair Use Policy limiting obvious misuse (everyday local charging) they'd likely not win in court. Judges often possess common sense.
And PR wise, owners for the most part also possess common sense. Especially if you bundle an announcement of the policy with pointing out how a few abusers are leaching on a common valuable resource that all owners together have bought and paid for.
I know I would feel better knowing that I myself, as well as the vast majority, is using the network as intended and that now there was a tool to weed out the small fraction of users abusing it.
Look, consider how Tesla has publicly always but emphasis on how the SC is for road trips and how it unlocks one of the final obstacles to wide spread EV adoption: long distance travel. If someone legally challenged a Fair Use Policy limiting obvious misuse (everyday local charging) they'd likely not win in court. Judges often possess common sense.
And PR wise, owners for the most part also possess common sense. Especially if you bundle an announcement of the policy with pointing out how a few abusers are leaching on a common valuable resource that all owners together have bought and paid for.
I know I would feel better knowing that I myself, as well as the vast majority, is using the network as intended and that now there was a tool to weed out the small fraction of users abusing it.
That's a good post. I think such a fair use policy is needed, especially now that Tesla has started softly enforcing some boundaries for Supercharging. I agree.
What I'm not quite sure is, the legal aspect of current owners. Tesla's sales people seem the weakest link, having promoted Supercharging fairly liberally it seems - and the rest of the company PR was not all that clear either. It might be a coin-toss Tesla would prefer to avoid. I would recommend grandfathering existing owners in instead.
Finally, any fair use policy will come to the question of the urban/condo charger: Tesla has even built Superchargers with these people in mind in some markets. How would that be expressed in a fair use policy. Would it, for example, be legally enforceable to (positively) discriminate customers based on their home charging potential?
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I guess you could just add a passage that states this policy is in effect with the exception of Superchargers designated as "Urban chargers" or some such label (Tokyo, NYC, London, Hong Kong etc).
I disagree about grandfathering old owners: it would send the message that the intentions for the SC network has changed but it hasn't. It always was supposed to be like this, they just hadn't defined it precisely in writing yet.
I would say not having it defined precisely in writing is a pretty big legal issue, especially considering the points listed above.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Well that's kind if my point: there was always a policy intended or assumed and now it's up to Tesla to define it in writing. If their definition of proper use includes 99% of owners and users and single out only say 1% as abusers I honestly don't see them having a problem with it legally. It's normal in the eyes of the law to use common sense and exclude fringe cases in all kinds of situations.
There are many situations in both public law as well as when it comes to private contract law where common sense comes in to play. Another way to put it, that most would agree with, is: even if it's not specifically forbidden it may still be illegal/ disallowed if it's obviously wrong/unethical/abusive/etc. Courts for example very often talk about "common sense of justice".
My guess is that Tesla doesn't want to have to establish a clearly defined policy with limitations spelled out. Whatever the problem is that they see (presumably superchargers that are at 100% occupancy), they hoped that a friendly letter asking people to be courteous and to scale back their use would suffice. If the letter doesn't improve whatever the perceived problem is, then they will consider writing a policy. An actual written policy with teeth is going to create more bad PR than this did, so they would prefer not to have to do that. It would have been easy to write such a letter in way that didn't make people feel like they were be singled out unfairly and then the whole tone of this conversation would have gone far, far better for them. If the letter didn't strike a falsely accusatory tone, I think the overwhelming majority here would have supported it.
In fact, I have no problem with the letter's tone for people who really are using the superchargers excessively. The only issue I have is that they apparently sent it to a fair number of people who shouldn't have received it. Particularly people who actually don't even have a local supercharger. I find those situations quite baffling, unless there is more to the story like that they commute 70 miles to a location near the supercharger, where they charge daily.
Perhaps it was just buggy code in the mailing list generator. If so, perhaps they could find the bug, re-run the list and send "oops" emails to those who weren't intended to receive them. I remain puzzled at how they can be so good at press-facing communication and so bad at customer-facing communication. It really isn't that hard to do.
In fact, I have no problem with the letter's tone for people who really are using the superchargers excessively. The only issue I have is that they apparently sent it to a fair number of people who shouldn't have received it. Particularly people who actually don't even have a local supercharger. I find those situations quite baffling, unless there is more to the story like that they commute 70 miles to a location near the supercharger, where they charge daily.
Perhaps it was just buggy code in the mailing list generator. If so, perhaps they could find the bug, re-run the list and send "oops" emails to those who weren't intended to receive them. I remain puzzled at how they can be so good at press-facing communication and so bad at customer-facing communication. It really isn't that hard to do.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Agree to a large extent LetsGoFast!
Where's Ricardo Reyes? I think how they handle this in the next week or two will be very telling as to whether or not their PR department is able to rise to the challenge.
Where's Ricardo Reyes? I think how they handle this in the next week or two will be very telling as to whether or not their PR department is able to rise to the challenge.
Now we're back on track to resolving the root of this issue.
(Tesla Motors defining their SuperCharging policy.)
That would help resolve the discussion about another cormer case, overhere in The Netherlands. Commercial vehicle use.
Basically some owners feel that the SuC in Amsterdam has become some kind of hangout place for SuC-ing taxi drivers.
Superchargers Amsterdam - Taxi Hangout
In case you wonder why the Amsterdam Suc with 8 stalls (+2 inside the SeC) is the worldwide Top-1 on some days, that's why.
(Tesla Motors defining their SuperCharging policy.)
That would help resolve the discussion about another cormer case, overhere in The Netherlands. Commercial vehicle use.
Basically some owners feel that the SuC in Amsterdam has become some kind of hangout place for SuC-ing taxi drivers.
Superchargers Amsterdam - Taxi Hangout
In case you wonder why the Amsterdam Suc with 8 stalls (+2 inside the SeC) is the worldwide Top-1 on some days, that's why.
I agree that re-labelling some Superchargers as Urbanchargers or similar could help with the discrepancy. Even then I think Tesla might have a hard time finding a wording that wouldn't hurt sales to condo dwellers in other parts of the world where they may have relied on non-urban Superchargers and even been pitched that by sales.
As for grandfathering, I'm perfectly fine agreeing to disagree, but would still like to mention the possible legal liability of Tesla sales people pitching liberal Supercharging. I can see a sufficient group coming up with stories how they were sold the car under different pretences and this is something I think would be best avoided for all. Grandfathering in would help sort that out both legally and morally.
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
Doesn't the cost of running superchargers decrease when Tesla installs the stationary storage and solar collection at the site? I thought that was the long term goal, that the power would be generated/stored from the sun, with grid as backup or for peak use, and the cost of the electricity would be cheap?
Come to think of it, when was the last time Tesla added a solar canopy and stationary storage installation to a supercharger site?
Come to think of it, when was the last time Tesla added a solar canopy and stationary storage installation to a supercharger site?
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
If you're an apartment dweller and your purchase decision hinges on there being a close by UrbanCharger, but there isn't, well then a Tesla is not for you I guess. It's better for Tesla to be honest about this and build out the UrbanCharger network with time, just as they're doing with their long distance Supercharger network. If Tesla isn't honest about this they may end up in a situation with lots of unhappy buyers being told they didn't purchase what they thought they did.
With regards to grandfathering let's agree to disagree, and yes: it's a judgement call.
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
